Art.45 Entry Into Force

Author(s):  
Bantekas Ilias

This chapter examines Article 45 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which deals with the entry into force of the Convention. The practice of the UN in respect of multilateral treaties suggests an antipathy towards their entry into force without a substantial quorum of ratifications. Article 45(1) CRPD does not depart from the UN model whereby a treaty enters into force in relation to existing (ratifying) parties and not independently of them. In accordance with customary law as reflected in Article 24(4) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 45 CRPD applies not from the moment the treaty enters into force, but rather from the ‘moment of the adoption of the text’. The adoption of the text of a treaty does not necessarily coincide with the signing of the treaty. The text of the CRPD was adopted on 13 December 2006 but was opened for signature on 30 March 2007.

Author(s):  
Bantekas Ilias

This chapter examines Article 48 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). A state may express its consent to no longer be bound by a treaty to which it is a party by way of denunciation, withdrawal, or suspension of the treaty in question. Article 48 CRPD does not expressly allow states to withdraw from or suspend the operation of the Convention. Although it only provides for denunciation through a written notification the effect of which commences a year after it is received by the depositary, Article 48 CRPD is silent as to whether a state may denounce the entire Convention or also parts of it. This matter is dealt with under the general provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reflect customary international law.


Author(s):  
Bantekas Ilias

This chapter examines Article 41 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). In accordance with article 76(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the designation of the depositary of a treaty may be made by the negotiating states, either in the treaty itself or in some other manner. Practice, as is the case with Article 41 CRPD, suggests that depositories are designated in the body of the treaty. The depositary is expected to undertake certain functions and assume several powers under customary international law, none of which are explained in the depositary provisions of multilateral treaties. The functions and powers of the depositary should be distinguished from other functions and powers entrusted to the same entity under other provisions of the same treaty.


Author(s):  
Magliveras Konstantinos

This chapter examines Article 47 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which deals with amendments. The rationale for the need to have an amendment clause in multilateral conventions is that each treaty has a life of its own and it is highly probable that at some future point circumstances or conditions may change necessitating one or more amendments. Treaties do not have to stipulate expressly their amendment because it is generally accepted that contracting parties have the unfettered right to change their provisions, provided that they observe the general rules envisaged in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, by inserting an amendment clause, contracting parties are offered the opportunity to stipulate detailed and often very detailed provisions, and this is the case with the CRPD.


Author(s):  
Bantekas Ilias

This chapter examines Article 43 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The formal act by which a state consents to be bound by a treaty is expressed through ratification. The various legal terms used to denote such consent (ie acceptance, approval, or accession) produce the same functional and legal effect in the international sphere. Their differences lie chiefly in the states’ internal/constitutional sphere. Article 43 CRPD departs from equivalent provisions in other treaties under the UN aegis, as well as other multilateral treaties, at least in phrasing. Other multilateral treaties specifically distinguish between the two classical types of consent: a) that which is open to signatory states, namely ratification, acceptance and approval and; b) that which is open to non-signatories, namely accession. Article 43 does not make this distinction explicit. Its wording seems to suggest that acceptance and approval are excluded from its ambit, but given that both of these produce exactly the same legal effects as ratification, the distinction is practically meaningless.


2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 433-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palitha T. B. Kohona

This Note will examine developments in the practice of the United Nations secretary-general on reservations and declarations to treaties, particularly since 1994 when the Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties was last updated. This period was marked by some notable developments in the previous practice, especially in connection with human rights treaties.The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Vienna Convention) provides the framework for the functions of the secretary-general in his role as depositary of multilateral treaties. Most aspects of the law relating to reservations and declarations to treaties are also codified in the Vienna Convention.Over five hundred multilateral treaties are deposited with the secretary-general. The complex requirements relating to these treaties and the concerns of the many disparate states that may undertake treaty actions with regard to them have significantly influenced his practice. He is also conscious of the political sensitivities surrounding his decisions and the need to protect his own integrity and impartiality.


Author(s):  
Bantekas Ilias

This chapter examines Article 42 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Multilateral treaties such as the CRPD, which are adopted after years of negotiation, are opened for signature either to all states or only those states that participated in the negotiations and the final conference. Signature clauses are typically distinct from accession and ratification clauses given their bifurcated legal nature and distinct legal effects. Multilateral treaties undergo a three-tier process: a) negotiation/discussion; b) signature of final text and; c) ratification, which is further distinguished by the deposit of an instrument of ratification and the adoption of implementing legislation at the domestic level. Article 42 states that present Convention shall be open for signature by all states and by regional integration organizations at United Nations Headquarters in New York as of 30 March 2007. By September 2017 there were approximately 175 ratifications and twelve signatories to the CRPD.


2010 ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Fiona Broughton

In September 1992, Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), committing itself to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the rights of all children on a non-discriminatory basis as outlined in the Convention. But just who is a child under the wording of the CRC? Article 1 of the CRC defines the child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to that child majority is attained earlier”. So the CRC is clear on a maximum age limit for one to qualify as a ‘child’ and thus gain rights under the CRC. It makes no mention, however, of a minimum age limit for a human being to qualify as a ‘child’ under the Convention. Does a child gain rights under the Convention from the moment of his existence, i.e., immediately following conception, or from the moment of ...


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document